DOCSLIB.ORG

Annotated Checklist of Hungarian Bryophytes

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Annotated Checklist of Hungarian Bryophytes Studia bot. hung. 35, pp. 91–149, 2004 ANNOTATED CHECKLIST OF HUNGARIAN BRYOPHYTES P. ERZBERGER1 and B. PAPP2 1Belziger Str. 37, D-10823 Berlin, Germany; E-mail: [email protected] 2Department of Botany, Hungarian Natural History Museum H-1476 Budapest, Pf. 222, Hungary; E-mail: [email protected] The checklist presented below contains 629 bryophyte taxa in 199 genera, 2 species of hornworts in 2 genera, 141 species and 2 additional subspecies of liverworts in 50 genera and 483 species and 1 addi- tional subspecies of mosses in 147 genera. It is the first inventory of Hungarian bryophytes in twenty years. Not all problems resulting from changes in taxonomy could be resolved yet, but the fields where further research is necessary are pointed out. Separate lists of excluded (46), doubtful (42) and recently added taxa (30) are provided. The annotations comment on taxonomic and nomenclatural changes, quote specimen details or contain otherwise relevant information. Key words: bryophytes, checklist, Hungary INTRODUCTION This is the first attempt to prepare an up-dated checklist of all bryophyte taxa of Hungary, more than twenty years after the publication of the “Handbook of the Hungarian Bryoflora” (ORBÁN and VAJDA 1983). Since then, partly as a result of fieldwork and partly resulting from herbarium revision, several new species have been added to the Hungarian bryoflora. Other taxa, some reported in ORBÁN and VAJDA (1983) and many in numerous other papers as occurring in Hungary, are now considered to be absent from Hungary, due to the application of better de- scriptions of taxa or to the amendment of various errors, especially with respect to geography. The species concerned are listed in the appendices. A considerable number of taxonomic and nomenclatural changes have accumulated within the last two decades, and thus the need to replace the somewhat out-of-date ORBÁN and VAJDA (1983) by a modern checklist has been increasingly felt. The application of national and international legislation with respect to the conservation of nature must be founded on an inventory of species that reflects the present state. This kind of inventory is also a prerequisite for the preparation of a red data book of bryophytes satisfying modern criteria (IUCN 1994). One of the most serious problems of an up-dated treatment of Hungarian bryophyte taxa lies in the difficulties of interpretation of old reports, in cases when the concepts of taxa have changed in the meantime. This concerns a considerable proportion of the Hungarian bryoflora. On the other hand, Hungarian bryology, fortunately, is in possession of a large body of herbarium specimens collected by Studia Botanica Hungarica 35, 2004 Hungarian Natural History Museum, Budapest 92 ERZBERGER, P. and PAPP, B. BOROS and VAJDA during long decades of the last century, and now to a large part housed in the bryophyte collections of Budapest (BP), Eger (EGR) and Szom- bathely (SZO), with vouchers for almost every one of the records published by these two outstanding personalities of Hungarian 20th century bryology. In princi- ple, therefore, the problems due to progress in taxonomy can be overcome by her- barium revision. However, only few genera or species groups have been studied in this respect up to now (e.g. Tortula Sect. Rurales:TÓTH (1986, 1987), Barbula, Didymodon:GALAMBOS (1992), Grimmia:MAIER,PAPP and ERZBERGER, unpubl., Hedwigia, Dicranum tauricum / viride, Ditrichum crispatissimum / flexicaule, Funaria muhlenbergii / pulchella:ERZBERGER (1996, 1999, 2001, 2002), Pohlia Sect. Pohliella:ERZBERGER (in press), Sphagnum:SZURDOKI (2003)). Especially some large and/or difficult genera like Bryum, Racomitrium and Schistidium are in bad need of revision, and our results with respect to these are far from definite. For- tunately, on the other hand, Hungarian specimens have been included in world- wide or European revisions of some genera, e.g. Aloina (DELGADILLO 1975), Grim- mia (MUÑOZ and PANDO 2000), Schistidium (BLOM 1996), Seligeria (GOS and OCHYRA 1994) and the species of the Calliergon-Scorpidium-Drepanocladus complex (HEDENÄS 2003). This means a substantial contribution to the solution of the problems outlined above. In order to facilitate future research and as a first step towards a specimen- based Hungarian flora, we quote specimen details (herbarium, inventory number, locality, date and collector) for virtually all taxa that are known from a single local- ity or a few sites only. The taxonomy of hornworts and liverworts follows the recently published checklists of GROLLE and LONG (2000) and SÖDERSTRÖM et al. (2002). For mosses, no comparable comprehensive modern taxonomic treatment is available, therefore, in general, we follow CORLEY et al. (1981) and CORLEY and CRUND- WELL (1991), with the exception of some genera listed below together with the publications on which we rely (Table 1). We have not adopted the more radical changes proposed by ZANDER (1993) in Pottiaceae and HEDENÄS (2003) in Am- blystegiaceae and other pleurocarpous mosses, because, contrary to BLOCKEEL and LONG (1998), we feel that perhaps more research is needed to corroborate these concepts. In the interest of nomenclatural stability, we rather followed the more moderate amendments of nomenclature published in several German refer- ence works (LUDWIG et al. 1996, KOPERSKI et al. 2000, NEBEL and PHILIPPI 2000, 2001). For the preparation of the checklist, published reports on the occurrence of taxa in Hungary were evaluated from the following main sources, with critical ref- erence to specimens where appropriate: BOROS (1968), ORBÁN and VAJDA Studia bot. hung. 35, 2004 ANNOTATED CHECKLIST OF HUNGARIAN BRYOPHYTES 93 Table 1. Taxonomic references for some moss genera. Aloina DELGADILLO (1975) Bryum HODGETTS (2001) Dichodontium WERNER (2002) Ditrichum FRISVOLL (1985), ERZBERGER (2001) Drepanocladus aduncus group HEDENÄS (2003) Grimmia GREVEN (1995), MAIER (2002a, b), MAIER and GEISSLER (1995), MUÑOZ (1998a, b), MUÑOZ and PANDO (2000) Mnium KOPONEN (1994) Orthotrichum LEWINSKY (1993), LEWINSKY-HAAPASAARI (1998), LUDWIG et al. (1996), MAZIMPAKA et al. (2000), VITT (1973) Plagiothecium MASTRACCI and SAUER (2001) Pterygoneurum CANO et al. (1994), FREY et al. (1990), PÓCS (1999), SEGARRA et al. (1998) Racomitrium FRISVOLL (1983), BEDNAREK-OCHYRA (1995) Schistidium BLOM (1996, 1998) Tortula NEBEL and HEINRICHS (2000), TÓTH (1986, 1987), WERNER and HÉBRARD (1986) Ulota SMITH and PROCTOR (1993), ERZBERGER (2003) (1983), DÜLL (1983, 1984, 1985, 1992), SÖDERSTRÖM et al. (2002). Numerous smaller papers with floristical data on Hungarian bryophytes were evaluated as well and are referenced in the annotations. We have compiled species and – in a few cases – subspecies of bryophytes, but not varieties. Nevertheless, nearly all reports on varieties in BOROS (1968) and ORBÁN and VAJDA (1983) and some other sources are referenced in the annota- tions. Each entry begins with the accepted name of the taxon (in bold face), and au- thorities in standardised abbreviations (BRUMMIT and POWELL 1992). In brackets follow synonyms, if any. In general, only the most important synonyms are given, to facilitate the use of current bryological works. If names in ORBÁN and VAJDA (1983) and BOROS (1968) differ from the accepted name in this checklist, these differing names are always the first synonyms given. In some cases, additional synonyms used in English and German floras (e.g.SMITH 1978, 1990, FRAHM and FREY 1992, FREY et al. 1995) or even in taxonomic treatments that might become influential in the future (e.g.HEDENÄS 2003, ZANDER 1993) are included to facili- tate the use of the checklist. It must be emphasised that synonyms are listed here Studia bot. hung. 35, 2004 94 ERZBERGER, P. and PAPP, B. for practical purposes; they may not comply with the rules of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (GREUTER et al. 2000), and in some but not all cases this is stated in a note. Annotations highlight nomenclatural, taxonomic or other questions of interest and quote the literature. We treat the three groups of bryophytes: Anthocerotae, Hepaticae and Musci separately. After the main list – i.e. the checklist proper – we have compiled some separate lists. Appendix 1 contains the taxa excluded from the Hungarian flora (7 hep., 39 musc.), because some kind of error could be clearly demonstrated. Appen- dix 2 is a list of doubtful species (1 hep., 29 musc.) not included in the main list, be- cause we feel that their inclusion would probably be erroneous, but evidence for this is less clear than for the excluded taxa in App. 1, e.g. doubtful taxa are included here, if no specimen could be located. Taxa in Apps 1 and 2 that appeared in ORBÁN and VAJDA (1983) are marked with an asterisk (3 hep., 16 musc.). Appen- dix 3 contains taxa that are less doubtful, where our reservations do not warrant ex- clusion from the main list (6 hep., 6 musc.). We are confident that a large propor- tion of these taxa is in fact a member of the Hungarian bryoflora. To facilitate com- parison with ORBÁN and VAJDA (1983), in Appendix 4 a list of taxa recorded after 1983 is provided (2 hep., 28 musc.). App. 5 is a table of useful synonyms. The deci- sion to place particular taxa in any one of these lists is based on the evidence avail- able at the time of compilation. It is hoped that in a later edition of the checklist these problems will be solved due to progress in herbarium and field research. * * * Acknowledgements – We thank the directors and curators of the following herbaria for the ar- rangement of loans of specimens: B, EGR, JE, SZO. We are especially grateful to E. MAIER, Geneva, for revising a large number of Grimmia specimens, to J. KLAWITTER, Berlin, J. KUČERA, České Budejovice and TH.HOMM,ELSFLETH, for the revision of some specimens, and to L. BALOGH,T. PÓCS and E. SZURDOKI for valuable comments. Part of this work was supported by the Institute of Environmental Management, Hungary.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mosses of Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau, China
    J. Hattori Bot. Lab. No. 82: 305- 320 (July 1997) MOSSES OF QINGHAI-TIBETAN PLATEAU, CHINA 1 2 BENITO C. TAN AND JIA Yu ABSTRACT . A total of 57 genera and 109 species of mosses are reported based on collections made from the 1995 expedition to Yushu Prefecture of Qinghai province. Didymodon gaochienii and Or­ thomitrium schofieldii are described new to science. Encalypta intermedia, Hygrohypnum po/are and Leptopterygynandrum austro-alpinum are three moss records that have not previously been reported from China. Significant range extensions . are reported for Amblyodon dealbatum, Conardia compacta, Distichium hagenii, Grimmia anodon, Leptopterygynandrum subintegrum, Oedipodium gri.ffithianum, Orthotrichum pumilum, Philonotis calcarea, Plagiobryum demissum and Pylaisiella falcata . In addition, four new synonyms are proposed with their respective accepted names placed in­ side brackets: Aloina rubripila Aziz & Vohra [ =Aloina rigida var. obliquifolia (C. Muell.) Delgad.], Barbu/a anserino-capitata X.-J. Li [=Didymodonjohansenii (Williams) Zand.], Barbu/a longicosta­ ta X-J. Li [=Didymodon constrictus var. jlexicaulis (Chen) Saito] and Tortu/a longimucronata X.-J. Li [=Syntrichia ruralis (Hedw.) Web. & Mohr]. INTRODUCTION The province of Qinghai, with an area of about 720,000 sq. km, is the fourth largest province in China. It consitutes the eastern flank of the massive Tibetan plateau. The nu­ merous mountain glaciers in the province form the headwater of many great river systems in China and Indochina, such as Yellow River, Yangtze River and Mekong River. Because of its great distance from the ocean, the prevailing climate is strongly continental with in­ tense diurnal changes of daily temperature and a long winter season.
    [Show full text]
  • An Annotated Checklist of Egyptian Mosses Wagieh El-Saadawi1, Hanaa M
    1 Taeckholmia 35: 1-23 (2015) An annotated checklist of Egyptian mosses Wagieh El-Saadawi1, Hanaa M. Shabbara2, Manal Ibrahim Khalil3 and Mai Ahmed Taha4* 1-4Department of Botany, Faculty of Science, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt; e-mail: [email protected], [email protected], 3manalibrahim2000@ yahoo.com, [email protected] *Corresponding author. Wagieh El-Saadawi, Hanaa M. Shabbara, Manal Ibrahim Khalil and Mai Ahmed Taha, 2015. An annotated checklist of Egyptian mosses. Taeckholmia 35: 1-23. The presented list of Egyptian mosses includes 181 taxa in 56 genera, 17 families and 10 orders. Synonyms reported only from Egypt are given in a separate list. The distribution of the 181 mosses in the 11, hitherto, surveyed phytogeographic territories of Egypt shows that S, Mm, Cai and Di are the richest territories regarding the number of recorded taxa. Pottiaceae, Bryaceae and Funariaceae dominate the flora. Pohlia lescuriana (Sull.) Ochi is a new record to Egypt. Other relevant annotations are also given. Key words: Checklist, Egypt, Mosses, Pohlia lescuriana. Introduction The increasing interest in the taxonomy of the bryophytes, especially aimed at biodiversity conservation has stimulated the elaboration of updated and corrected checklists (Cortini 2001). During the last five decades six checklists of Egyptian mosses had been published by: Imam & Ghabbour (1972); EL-Saadawi and Abou EL-Kheir (1973); El-Saadawi & Badawi (1977); El-Saadawi et al. (1999); El-Saadawi et al. (2003) and Ros et al. (2013). Naturally the number of recorded mosses increased with time and the last list included 166 taxa. ______________________ Received 25 July, Accepted 31 August 2015 2 Wagieh El-Saadawi et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Annotated Checklist of Estonian Bryophytes
    Folia Cryptog. Estonica, Fasc. 52: 109–127 (2015) http://dx.doi.org/10.12697/fce.2015.52.14 Annotated checklist of Estonian bryophytes Kai Vellak1,2, Nele Ingerpuu2, Mare Leis3 & Loore Ehrlich4 1Natural History Museum, University of Tartu, 46 Vanemuise Street, Tartu 51014. E-mail: [email protected] 2Institute of Ecology and Earth Sciences, University of Tartu, 40 Lai Street, Tartu 51005. E-mail: [email protected] 3Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, 5 Fr. R. Kreutzwald Street, 51014 Tartu. E-mail: [email protected] 4Estonian Museum of Natural History, 26 Toompuiestee Street, 10148 Tallinn. E-mail: [email protected] Abstract: The updated list of Estonian bryophytes includes 594 species from all three phyla. Only one species is reported for Estonia according to the literature data, all others have voucher speciemens in herbaria, two of them outside of Estonia. Altogether 242 species are frequent in Estonia, 173 species are rare, and 161 are sporadically distributed. We do not have any recent data for 20 species, and their presence in Estonia is doubtful. In 2008 a new Estonian Red list was compiled and 369 bryophyte species were evaluated against IUCN criteria. Approximately one fifth of the Estonian bryoflora (129 species) is designated to the three threat categories. Keywords: Bryoflora, frequencies of species, protected species, red list INTRODUCTION The diversity of taxa at the global or local scale taxa according to recently accepted synonyms, depends greatly on the taxonomical research. supply every taxa with a voucher specimen, The species number of bryophytes in the world estimate the present frequency in Estonia and varies between 15 000 and 20 000 (Shaw et al., give proper names in Estonian for new taxa or 2011).
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Analysis of the Bryophyte Floras of Northwest Belarus Concrete Fortification and the Carpathians
    Biodiv. Res. Conserv. 24: 23-27, 2011 BRC www.brc.amu.edu.pl DOI 10.2478/v10119-011-0025-7 Comparative analysis of the bryophyte floras of northwest Belarus concrete fortification and the Carpathians Anastasia Sakovich1 & Gennadij Rykovsky2 1Department of Botany, Faculty of Biology and Ecology, Yanka Kupala State University of Grodno, Ozheshko 22, Grodno, 230022, Republic of Belarus, e-mail: [email protected] 2V. F. Kuprevich Institute of Experimental Botany, Belarusian National Academy of Sciences, Academic 27, Minsk, 220072, Republic of Belarus, e-mail: [email protected] Abstract: The detailed research of bryophyte flora, carried out in 2008-2011 on fortifications from the times of the First World War and Second World War in Grodno district, resulted in recording 101 species, of which 95 species were true mosses (Bryophyta) and 6 species were hepatics (Marchantiophyta). Because the substratum displayed certain ecological similarity with carbonate rocks, we made comparative analysis of the species list. The total of 28 rare and very rare (in Belarus scale) bryophyte species were recorded, of which 3 species were included in the Red Data Book of Belarus; 3 species had a conser- vation status at the European level. Key words: bryophyte flora, concrete fortifications, carbonate rocks, comparative analysis 1. Introduction These constructions occur more often in the western part of the country. Older fortifications, built before the First In general, within a region, bryophyte floras retain World War (WWI), were the most interesting to us, in more ancient features than vascular floras. At the same particular the forts encircling Grodno town which are time, the mobility of bryophytes should not be under- especially extensive.
    [Show full text]
  • New York Natural Heritage Program Rare Plant Status List May 2004 Edited By
    New York Natural Heritage Program Rare Plant Status List May 2004 Edited by: Stephen M. Young and Troy W. Weldy This list is also published at the website: www.nynhp.org For more information, suggestions or comments about this list, please contact: Stephen M. Young, Program Botanist New York Natural Heritage Program 625 Broadway, 5th Floor Albany, NY 12233-4757 518-402-8951 Fax 518-402-8925 E-mail: [email protected] To report sightings of rare species, contact our office or fill out and mail us the Natural Heritage reporting form provided at the end of this publication. The New York Natural Heritage Program is a partnership with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and by The Nature Conservancy. Major support comes from the NYS Biodiversity Research Institute, the Environmental Protection Fund, and Return a Gift to Wildlife. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction.......................................................................................................................................... Page ii Why is the list published? What does the list contain? How is the information compiled? How does the list change? Why are plants rare? Why protect rare plants? Explanation of categories.................................................................................................................... Page iv Explanation of Heritage ranks and codes............................................................................................ Page iv Global rank State rank Taxon rank Double ranks Explanation of plant
    [Show full text]
  • (Bryopsida: Splachnaceae). Lily Roberta Lewis University of Connecticut, [email protected]
    University of Connecticut OpenCommons@UConn Doctoral Dissertations University of Connecticut Graduate School 5-7-2015 Resolving Amphitropical Phylogeographic Histories in the Common Dung Moss Tetraplodon (Bryopsida: Splachnaceae). Lily Roberta Lewis University of Connecticut, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://opencommons.uconn.edu/dissertations Recommended Citation Lewis, Lily Roberta, "Resolving Amphitropical Phylogeographic Histories in the Common Dung Moss Tetraplodon (Bryopsida: Splachnaceae)." (2015). Doctoral Dissertations. 747. https://opencommons.uconn.edu/dissertations/747 Resolving Amphitropical Phylogeographic Histories in the Common Dung Moss Tetraplodon (Bryopsida: Splachnaceae). Lily Roberta Lewis, PhD University of Connecticut, 2015 Many plants have geographic disjunctions, with one of the more rare, yet extreme being the amphitropical, or bipolar disjunction. Bryophytes (namely mosses and liverworts) exhibit this pattern more frequently relative to other groups of plants and typically at or below the level of species. The processes that have shaped the amphitropical disjunction have been infrequently investigated, with notably a near absence of studies focusing on mosses. This dissertation explores the amphitropical disjunction in the dung moss Tetraplodon, with a special emphasis on the origin of the southernmost South American endemic T. fuegianus. Chapter 1 delimits three major lineages within Tetraplodon with distinct yet overlapping geographic ranges, including an amphitropical lineage containing the southernmost South American endemic T. fuegianus. Based on molecular divergence date estimation and phylogenetic topology, the American amphitropical disjunction is traced to a single direct long-distance dispersal event across the tropics. Chapter 2 provides the first evidence supporting the role of migratory shore birds in dispersing bryophytes, as well as other plant, fungal, and algal diaspores across the tropics.
    [Show full text]
  • Resolving the Northern Hemisphere Source Region for the Long-Distance Dispersal Event That Gave Rise to the South American Endemic Dung Moss Tetraplodon Fuegianus 1
    AJB Advance Article published on November 9, 2017, as 10.3732/ajb.1700144. The latest version is at http://www.amjbot.org/cgi/doi/10.3732/ajb.1700144 RESEARCH ARTICLE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BOTANY INVITED PAPER For the Special Issue: Patterns and Processes of American Amphitropical Plant Disjunctions: New Insights Resolving the northern hemisphere source region for the long-distance dispersal event that gave rise to the South American endemic dung moss 1 Tetraplodon fuegianus Lily R. Lewis 2,3,8 , Elisabeth M. Biersma 4,5 , Sarah B. Carey3 , Kent Holsinger2 , Stuart F. McDaniel 3 , Ricardo Rozzi6,7 , and Bernard Goffi net 2 PREMISE OF THE STUDY: American bipolar plant distributions characterize taxa at various taxonomic ranks but are most common in the bryophytes at infra- specifi c and infrageneric levels. A previous study on the bipolar disjunction in the dung moss genus Tetraplodon found that direct long-distance dispersal from North to South in the Miocene–Pleistocene accounted for the origin of the Southern American endemic Tetraplodon fuegianus , congruent with other molecular studies on bipolar bryophytes. The previous study, however, remained inconclusive regarding a specifi c northern hemisphere source region for the transequatorial dispersal event that gave rise to T. fuegianus . METHODS: To estimate spatial genetic structure and phylogeographic relationships within the bipolar lineage of Tetraplodon , which includes T. fuegianus , we analyzed thousands of restriction-site-associated DNA (RADseq) loci and single nucleotide polymorphisms using Bayesian individual assignment and maximum likelihood and coalescent model based phylogenetic approaches. KEY RESULTS: Northwestern North America is the most likely source of the recent ancestor to T.
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogeny of Three East Antarctic Mosses
    University of Wollongong Research Online University of Wollongong Thesis Collection 1954-2016 University of Wollongong Thesis Collections 2013 Phylogeny of Three East Antarctic Mosses Rhys A. Wyber University of Wollongong Follow this and additional works at: https://ro.uow.edu.au/theses University of Wollongong Copyright Warning You may print or download ONE copy of this document for the purpose of your own research or study. The University does not authorise you to copy, communicate or otherwise make available electronically to any other person any copyright material contained on this site. You are reminded of the following: This work is copyright. Apart from any use permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part of this work may be reproduced by any process, nor may any other exclusive right be exercised, without the permission of the author. Copyright owners are entitled to take legal action against persons who infringe their copyright. A reproduction of material that is protected by copyright may be a copyright infringement. A court may impose penalties and award damages in relation to offences and infringements relating to copyright material. Higher penalties may apply, and higher damages may be awarded, for offences and infringements involving the conversion of material into digital or electronic form. Unless otherwise indicated, the views expressed in this thesis are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the University of Wollongong. Recommended Citation Wyber, Rhys A., Phylogeny of Three East Antarctic Mosses, Bachelor of Medical Biotechnology Advanced - Honours thesis, , University of Wollongong, 2013. https://ro.uow.edu.au/theses/4646 Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the University of Wollongong.
    [Show full text]
  • Bryophyte Flora of the Czech Republic: Updated Checklist and Red List and a Brief Analysis
    Preslia 84: 813–850, 2012 813 Bryophyte flora of the Czech Republic: updated checklist and Red List and a brief analysis Bryoflóra České republiky: aktualizace seznamu a červeného seznamu a stručná analýza Dedicated to the centenary of the Czech Botanical Society (1912–2012) Jan K u č e r a1, Jiří Vá ň a2 & Zbyněk H r a d í l e k3 1University of South Bohemia, Faculty of Science, Branišovská 31, CZ–370 05 České Budějovice, Czech Republic, e-mail: [email protected]; 2Charles University Prague, Department of Botany, Faculty of Science, Benátská 2, CZ–128 01 Prague 2, Czech Republic, e-mail: [email protected]; 3Palacký University Olomouc, Department of Botany, Faculty of Science, Šlechtitelů 11, CZ-783 71 Olomouc-Holice, Czech Republic, e-mail: [email protected]. Kučera J., Váňa J. & Hradílek Z. (2012): Bryophyte flora of the Czech Republic: updated checklist and Red List and a brief analysis. – Preslia 84: 813–850. The bryoflora of the Czech Republic is analysed using an updated version of the checklist that includes recent taxonomic and nomenclatural changes. In addition, the baseline data was com- pletely revised using the IUCN 3.1 criteria. The main list includes 863 species of bryophytes (4 hornworts, 207 liverworts and 652 mosses) with 5 additional subspecies and 23 generally recog- nized varieties; 9 additional species are listed as of doubtful taxonomic status and 17 other species are evaluated as of uncertain occurrence. Of the 892 taxa evaluated, 46% qualified for inclusion in Red List categories (40 taxa in category RE, 70 in CR, 88 in EN, 93 in VU, 66 in LR-nt, 24 in DD-va and 30 in DD), while 54% are considered Least Concern (LC).
    [Show full text]
  • An Updated Checklist of Mosses of Xinjiang, China1 Новый Список Мхов Синьцзяня, Китай1
    Arctoa (1995) 4: 1-14 AN UPDATED CHECKLIST OF MOSSES OF XINJIANG, CHINA1 НОВЫЙ СПИСОК МХОВ СИНЬЦЗЯНЯ, КИТАЙ1 BENITO C. TAN2, JIAN-CHENG ZHAO3 AND REN-LIANG HU4 Abstract An updated checklist of Xinjiang mosses based on past publications and new collec- tions made in 1993 showed a total of 130 genera, 339 species and 8 infraspecific taxa. Twelve species and two varieties are reported here as new to China. They are Amblyodon dealbatus, Bryum schleicheri var. latifolium, Conardia compacta, Cynodontium schistii, Dicranella schreberiana, Orthotrichum cupulatum, O. hallii, O. pallens, O. speciosum var. elegans, Physcomitrium pyriforme, Pottia bryoides, P. heimii, Sphagnum warnstorfii and Tortella nitida. Amblyodon and Conardia are two new moss generic records for China. Резюме Новый список листостебельных мхов Синьцзян-Уйгурского автономного округа (северо-западный Китай) основан на последних публикациях и сборах авторов в 1993 году. Список включает 339 видов и 8 внутривидовых таксонов из 130 родов. Двенадцать видов и две разновидности приводятся впервые для Китая: Amblyodon dealbatus, Bryum schleicheri var. latifolium, Conardia compacta, Cynodontium schistii, Dicranella schreberiana, Orthotrichum cupulatum, O. hallii, O. pallens, O. speciosum var. elegans, Physcomitrium pyriforme, Pottia bryoides, P. heimii, Sphagnum warnstorfii и Tortella nitida. Два рода, Amblyodon и Conardia, найдены в Китае впервые. INTRODUCTION Himalayan Range, moist air currents from the The study area, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Indian Ocean fail to reach Xinjiang, resulting in Region, is the largest province of China, repre- the vast expanse of arid terrain. Hydrologically, senting roughly 1/6 of the national territory. It there is a progressive increase of precipitation is situated in the northwestern corner of the coun- from south to north, with the Altai region re- try (34° 15'-49° 11' N, 73° 21'-96° 25' E) with a ceiving the highest annual precipitation.
    [Show full text]
  • A CHECKLIST of MONTANA MOSSES (1880–2018) January 3, 2020
    A CHECKLIST OF MONTANA MOSSES (1880–2018) January 3, 2020 Joe C. Elliott Conservation Biology Research, Missoula, Montana Andrea K. Pipp Montana Natural Heritage Program, 1515 E Sixth Ave, Helena, Montana 59601 INTRODUCTION Montana has one of the richest recorded moss floras of the western United States (Eckel et al. 1997), even though large areas of the state remain under surveyed. The Flora of North America (FNA) volumes 27 (2007) and 28 (2014) include 1,402 species found in the continental United States, Canada, Greenland, and St. Pierre and Miquelon, of which 508 species have been recorded in Montana. Including varieties and subspecies, Montana has 522 moss taxa. The rich moss flora is due to the habitat and climatic diversity across the state and a long history of bryological exploration that began in the late 1800s. This checklist is a revision to the second preliminary checklist (Elliott 1993), which listed 408 taxa. The substantial increase in the number of moss taxa since 1993 indicates that, as in much of the western United States, our knowledge of the Montana moss flora continues to expand with increased field and herbarium studies. The discovery of mosses in eastern North America appears to be reaching saturation, but this is not true for western North America, where the accumulation of new species has continued to rise steeply over the last three decades (Carter et al. 2016). Another publication titled the “History, Biogeography, and Species of Montana Mosses (1880-2018)” will be published in Volume 36, Issue 2 of Evansia, a peer-reviewed quarterly of The American Bryological and Lichenological Society (2019).
    [Show full text]
  • Chemistry of Bryophytes Ge Xiaowei
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by ScholarBank@NUS CHEMISTRY OF BRYOPHYTES GE XIAOWEI (M.Sc., CHINESE ACADEMY OF PREVENTIVE MEDICINE) A THESIS SUBMITED FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE 2007 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First of all, I would like to gratefully acknowledge the enthusiastic supervision of Professor Leslie J. Harrison throughout the duration of this project. Without his encouragement and patience, nothing would be possible. Also thanks to Professor Benito C. Tan for identification of the plant materials and many instructions during my research. Several people have been instrumental in allowing this project to be completed. I would like to thank especially Madam Han Yan Hui and Miss Ler Peggy from NMR laboratory, Madam Wong Lai Kwai and Madam Lai Hui Ngee from mass spectrometer laboratory, and Ms Tan Geok Kheng from X-Ray laboratory. Thanks them for their assistance with all types of technical problems at all time. I am also grateful to my friends Dr. Wang Yan Mei, Ms Teo Ee Ling, Zhang Guo Dong, Li Wei, and Huang Ming Xing for their discussions, suggestions and happy hours with them. Thanks to National University of Singapore to award me the research scholarship. Finally, I am forever indebted to my families, my wife, my son, and my parents for their endless understanding, patience, support and love. ii Contents Chapter 1. Introduction 1 1.1 Natural products in drug discovery 2 1.2 Natural products in chemical ecology 3 1.3 New technologies and strategies in natural product studies 4 1.3.1 New technologies in natural product chemistry 7 1.3.2 Sources of novel natural products 8 1.3.3 Biotechnologies in natural product chemistry 11 1.4 Natural products from bryophytes 13 1.4.1 Natural products from Mosses 14 1.4.2 Natural products from liverworts 21 Chapter 2.
    [Show full text]